Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[danfaz]

Go buy a Nikon then. Simple solution. That pathetic narrow aperture is what makes this a less than $2000 lens and not a $6,000 to $10,000 lens (or more). The high ISO ability of new cameras makes these lenses totally usable in low light, and far more affordable to far more people. Sorry it doesn't include you.

Exactly. $2000 lenses are now consumer grade garbage?
The 800mm f/11 is $999. The 800mm f/5.6 is $17,999. Is this lens square in the middle as far as price? No, but I would say it's a mid-level lens as far as features go: weather-sealing, comes with lens hood (a common complaint), UD elements, Nano USM, etc.

 

[esglord]

“sorry honey, the minivan is going to have to wait. Don’t worry about what happened to the money. Btw, check out this close-up shot I took of the moon.”

 

[Act444]

As much as I have critiqued Canon in the past for their fixation with “ultra-slow” lenses, I’m going to make an exception with this 200-800: I have to say it’s honestly a very practical solution for a lot of shooters who need reach but can’t afford/don’t want to carry the weight of a Big White…and 800 f9 isn’t too crazy considering how popular TC use was with the 100-400. Although ideally I would rather have had it be a little faster up to 500mm, overall kudos to them for stepping “outside” convention and offering this as an option. I’ll be monitoring reviews and thoughts very closely on this one…

Hopefully they consider offering more “midrange” supertelephotos in the future (500 5.6, 600 6.3, etc.)

Ditto with the 24-105 2.8, although the large size may be a possible deterrent for my personal use cases, I’m glad the option is (finally) available. Curious to see its performance at 105mm 2.8…also, is the tripod mount detachable? Might increase its portability slightly…

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is something on rhe other side of the ring, but i can't tell what it is.
View attachment 212685

Ha – I had a narrower angle of view (inverse pun intended), and was thinking of the 24-105/2.8 as I replied. Still, that small disc looks like hidden fastener/service access port – a small notch to pry the cover up and access what's under it. On my cars, there are covers like that over the slots to manually release the transmission lever, manually unlock the power windows, etc. I suspect that underneath this one is a screw to remove the tripod collar for servicing the lens (if so, that means the 'non-removable' collar is removable with tools, maybe a Torx screwdriver?).

 

[koenkooi]

I think your description combines two different types of correction that aren't connected to each other.

Your first point is the only kind of vignetting correction, I think.

Your second point is not done for vignetting correction at all, but rather solely to fix distortion. On some lenses (16/2.8) you can't turn this off […]

No correction is forced or done when shooting RAW.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ditto with the 24-105 2.8, although the large size may be a possible deterrent for my personal use cases, I’m glad the option is (finally) available. Curious to see its performance at 105mm 2.8…also, is the tripod mount detachable? Might increase its portability slightly…

The foot is, the collar is not. Personally, I'd prefer the collar to fully come off.

 

[bereninga]

The permanent tripod collar on the 200-800mm might be the result of the collar coming off accidentally. I haven't had this issue myself but I know someone who has the RF 100-500 and had the collar come off accidentally and dropping.

If I had the lens, I don't see myself taking the collar off as it's a useful handle and strap mount. With the weight of the lens, I can't imagine someone not using it other than during transport.

 

[EricN]

Hard to believe.
If you hadn't posted these pictures...

Denoising is constantly improving a lot. Just two years ago, I didn't think it looked enough like a natural photograph. For me, it was too obvious the computer had touched it. I can still notice now, but it's less obvious. It does take some time to learn how to get it looking as good as results like @AlanF - I don't think I'm there yet or maybe I'm doing something wrong.

 

[Del Paso]

Denoising is constantly improving a lot. Just two years ago, I didn't think it looked enough like a natural photograph. For me, it was too obvious the computer had touched it. I can still notice now, but it's less obvious. It does take some time to learn how to get it looking as good as results like @AlanF - I don't think I'm there yet or maybe I'm doing something wrong.

Exactly what I was also thinking. Without Alan's expertise, results would look quite different.
My own denoising is, politely expressed, basic. But we never stop learning, right?
What AlanF showed us here, should convince at least a few "dark" lens or AI haters...

 

[Act444]

The foot is, the collar is not. Personally, I'd prefer the collar to fully come off.

View attachment 212686

I see, similar to the EF 100-400 II then. I agree, I’d rather have the option to completely remove it if I’m handholding. That said, based on my experience with the 100-400 it is still manageable…

 

[scyrene]

The MP-E is hard to improve on in it current form,

I disagree somewhat. They could reduce the weight by using less metal. They could massively improve out of focus areas (especially specular highlights) by using more than six straight-edged aperture blades, and they could stick a light on the end (half joking) ;P

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Dumb question: I've always had "peripheral exposure correction" unchecked because I like to do all the editing myself. Does this mean that I'm not getting the vignetting corrections from the lens? I've always assumed so. I've assumed that I've been free of those, but is there a correction layer I can't turn off?

The vignette correction in my post was done in Lightroom - the second image was the same image but with the correction disabled.
Anyway, in-camera lens corrections, if enabled, are applied to jpegs, not raw files.

 

[scyrene]

I'm sorry but the 200-800 to me does not appeal at all. It is yet another inexpensive smallish light RF telephoto lens with a pathetic narrow aperture.
Don't we already have enough of these? I mean RF 100-400, RF 600 and 800. And while not inexpensive, the RF 100-500 isn't exactly the brightest lens on the market (aperture wise).

Canon (and all other manufacturers) could definitely use some upper middle class priced small, light somewhat bright prime lenses. Nikon's PF lens approach is ingenious, featureing something handholdable, portable and usable for wildlife photographers, that is not cheap, but also not skyrocketing price wise. like the big telephoto primes.

It seems like Canon only focuses on great expensive lenses, or the really low end cheap and slow consumer lens "junk". Wheres the upper middle class? We used to have great inexpensive primes like EF 300mm f4l IS, 400mm f5.6L 200mm f2.8L etc.
They are still great, but not up to modern AF and IS standards, even on great cameras like the R5...

Some people are never satisfied

None of the RF (super-)telephoto lenses are junk. Have you even used them? Anyway CRGuy hinted there might be something in the mid range coming, though I'd be mildly surprised.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I disagree somewhat. They could reduce the weight by using less metal. They could massively improve out of focus areas (especially specular highlights) by using more than six straight-edged aperture blades, and they could stick a light on the end (half joking) ;P

Agreed. Well, except for half not-joking part about the light on the end, which if the ones on the EF-M 28mm Macro are any indication would not be powerful enough for anything remotely like the effective f/96 at 5x magnification.

 

[koenkooi]

I disagree somewhat. They could reduce the weight by using less metal. They could massively improve out of focus areas (especially specular highlights) by using more than six straight-edged aperture blades, and they could stick a light on the end (half joking) ;P

You are correct on all counts! I have the EF-M 28mm macro with the integrated light, that really helps, even with it being massively underpowered. What I meant with my original remark is that RF equivalents of EF lenses all have something 'more', the 180L could gain IS and useless-to-me SA control. I don't know what realistically could be added to the MP-E that would have practical benefits.

An MP-R with better coatings, more plastic, a light and without the fragile internal flex cable would be an instant pre-order from me, but I don't know if that is 'different' enough for Canon to design and sell it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You are correct on all counts! I have the EF-M 28mm macro with the integrated light, that really helps, even with it being massively underpowered.

So, you say you want more power for your M28 Macro? Try this...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Right now the biggest gap for RF seems to be fast wide primes, so I feel like those will be due next year.

I also think they are coming next year.
Please pardon my semantics but I feel they were due years ago.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

800mm is certainly headline grabbing but this is just only half a stop faster than the 800 f11. Yes theirs is zoom but most will be using this at 800 most of the time.
Close focus is an advantage here, but then the fixed tripod leg will make it more cumbersome to pack.

It is better in a lot of ways and worse in some others.
The RF 800 f/11 is still a great lens for the money.
If it were weather-sealed then I would keep it.
I will miss how light it is.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

"Fast" and "bright" have always been synonymous in describing lenses. Lenses with wider apertures transmit more light to the image plane (bright), thereby allowing shorter exposures (fast).

My problem with "fast" and "bright" is that they really refer to T stops.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Though I am not the target audience, I do feel the 24-105 2.8 is too expensive

To be fair, everything seems too expensive when you are not the target audience.
Being in the target audience, this lens is a dream and it costs exactly what I expected it to cost.
It definitely costs too much for people who would not get most of the benefits.
The fact that it is an internal zoom will make it that much harder to pack and it weighs too much to bring everywhere.